s 

Z 



Issued January 4, 1907 



U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

r 
OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS— BULLETIN 173. 

A. C. TRUE, Director. 



COM-HARVESTINfi MACHINERY. 



BY 



C. J. ZIl^THEO, 




WASHINCtTON: 
government printing office. 

1 9 T . 



/#-'%»s>, 



Monogr^ 




Book_L^_ 



/ 



/. 



6•i■^. 



911 Issued Jantiiiry 4, 1907. 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS— BULLETIN 173. 

A. C. TRUE, Director. 






CORN-HARVESTING MACHINERY. 



BY 



C. J. ZIISrTHKO, 

KXI'ISRT IN FARM IVIECHANIC 




WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING 01.?I'Ji^^ 
1907. 



'r^ 



Sc»^ 5 
-27 



THE OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS. 

STAFF. 

A. C. True, D. Sv.—Dncdor. 

E. W. Allen, Ph. D. — Assistant Dinclor and Editor of Expcnnient Station Record. 

W. H. Beal, B. a., M. E. — Chief of Editorial Diinsion. 

Elwood Mead, D. E. — Chief of Irrigation arid Drainage Investigations. 



LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. 



y. S. Department of Agriculture, 

Office of Experiment Stations, 
Washington, D. C, September 25, 1906. 
Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a report on Corn- 
harvesting Machinery, by C. J. Zintheo, of this Office; This report 
briefly sketches the history of corn-harvesting machinery in this 
country, describing in more or less detail the various implements and 
machines which have been used and are now in use, and discusses 
the economy of using such labor-saving devices. 

On a large part of the corn land of this country the grain only is 
harvested, leaving the stalks in the field to be consumed by cattle to 
some extent, but principally to go to waste, and remain in the way 
of subsequent cultivation. In this way a large part of the food value 
of the corn plant is lost. The great object of the introduction of 
corn-harvesting machinery is to prevent this loss. 

The report gives figures as to the value of corn fodder, and the cost 
of gathering it w4th the various machines described. 

Such a report should be of value to the farmers in the corn-growing 
sections, and its publication as a bulletin of this Office is recom- 
mended. 

Respectfully, 

A. C. True, Director. 
Hon. James Wilson, 

Secretary of Agriculture. 



JAN 10 1907 

D. of a 



CONTENTS, 



Page. 

Introduotion 5 

Simple methods of harvesting corn 7 

Topping 7 

Pulling or stripping the leaves 8 

Corn cutting with knives 8 

Machines for cutting corn 11 

Sled harvesters and similar devices 11 

Corn binders 16 

Historical « 16 

Construction 19 

Draft 25 

Cost and efficiency 25 

The corn shocker 26 

Description 27 

Cost and efficiency 28 

A corn-shock loader 30 

Corn pickers 31 

Description 31 

Objections and advantages 33 

Economy of corn-harvesting machinery 35 

Cutting and shredding machines •. 36 

Huskers and shredders 39 

Simple Husking devices 39 

Earlier mechanical huskers 40 

Combined huskers and shredders 40 

Cost of preparing corn fodder 43 

Cost of filling the silo 43 

Cost of shredded fodder 44 

Summary 46 

Conclusions 47 

(3) 



ILLUSTRATIONS. 



Page 
Plate I. Fig. 1. — Corn shocker unloading the shock. Fig. 2. — Corn shocker 

returning the central core 28 

II. Corn-shock loader: Fig. 1. — Loaded. Fig. 2. — Empty 30 

III. Modern corn picker : 32 

IV. Husker and shredder run by gasoline engine 42 

TEXT FIGURES. 

Fig. 1. Corn hook 9 

2. Foot device for cutting corn 9 

3. Wooden horse used to support shock 10 

4. One-row sled harvester 12 

5. Two-row sled harvester , 12 

6. Improved one-row sled harvester 13 

7. Corn harvester with automatic knife guards 13 

8. Two-row corn harvester with stationary lift 14 

9. Rear view of two-row corn harvester 15 

10. An early corn harvester 17 

11. Vertical corn harvester in the field 18 

12. Skeleton frame of corn binder, showing chains 19 

13. Frame of corn binder, showing mechanism 20 

14. Binder attachment 21 

15. Inclined com binder, showing tilting lever and guide rod 23 

16. Corn-stubble cutter, attached to corn harvester 24 

17. Corn harvester and shocker 27 

18. A corn-picking machine 32 

19. Cylindrical feed cutter 37 

20. Self-feeding ensilage cutter with blower 38 

21. Corn shredder 39 

22. Skeleton of husker and shredder 41 

23. Forms of shredder heads 42 

24. Safety device for shredder 43 

(4) 



CORN-HARVESTING MACHINERY. 



INTRODUCTION. 

Corn was the earliest as it is the most important cultivated crop on 
the American farm. Wlien the first colonists settled on American 
soil they found the Indians producing corn, and also preparing 
various foods from it. The first corn grown by white men was that 
of the Virginia Colony, at Jamestown, in 1608, and it is claimed that 
two Indians taught them how to plant and cultivate the crop. The 
product of this harvest served almost as the sole food supply of the 
colony. The early Massachusetts colonists, too, received their first 
lessons in corn cultivation from the Indians. The first fields culti- 
vated by the settlers there were those which had been left vacant by 
the Indians. 

The United States census of 1840 gives the corn yield for that year 
as 377,518,875 bushels. The following census (1850) places the yield 
at 592,000,000 bushels, with a corn acreage of 31,000,000. During 
the civil war little advance was made in the production of corn. In 
the year 1900 the United States alone produced 2,105,102,516 bushels, 
or about 75 per cent of the total crop of the world. In 1904 the yield 
of corn reached 2,467,480,934 bushels, and the acreage 92,231,581. « 

It is only when compared with the production of other cereals that 
the importance of this crop is fully appreciated. At the present time 
one-fifth of the area in improved land in the United States, one-third 
the area in crops of all kinds except pasture, and one-half the area in 
cereal crops is devoted to corn. In 1899, while 35 per cent of the 
farmers of the United States raised wheat, 82 per cent raised corn. 
The total combined yield of wheat, oats; barley, rye, and buckwheat 
in the United States amounted in 1904 to 1,673,995,336 bushels, and 
the acreage was 79,649,720 — these figures equaling two-thirds of the 
yield and four-fifths of the acreage of the corn crop. The farm value 
of the corn crop for 1904 was $1,087,461,440, while the combined 
value of the other crops mentioned for the same year was $877,120,785 
or only 80 per cent of the value of the corn crop.* In 1905 the 

a U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1904, p. 628. b Ibid., p. 629. 

(6) 



6 

yield of the corn crop was 2,708,000,000 Inishels and the vakie 
$1,116,700,000. 

There may be, moreover, a double harvest from every field of corn — 
that of the grain and that of the fodder. There are thousands of 
farmers in the United States who in the last few years have doul)led 
the profit they used to make on their corn crop, by harvesting the 
whole plant — stalks, leaves, and all — yet there are tens of thousands 
of other farmers who still ' ' snap ' ' or husk their corn in the field , letting 
the stalks and blades go largely to waste. It has been demonstrated 
beyond a doubt that when properl}^ harvested corn fodder is as 
nutritious as good hay. The farmer who would receive the full value 
of his crop should secure this fodder with as much care as he gives his 
hay, taking care that it is harvested at the proper period, and not 
allowed to have the nutrients it contains leached out by rains or 
injured by frost. 

The composition of the dry matter of the fodder corn varies greatly 
with the season. The yield of food material increases with the 
advancing age of the corn, the largest amount being obtained when 
the corn is well ripened. Feeding experiments have been conducted 
with corn fodder by which it has been determined that at least 45 
per cent of the food value of the corn plant is in the stalk, and that 
the stalk can be cut at the time the ear is dented without material 
loss to the kernel. A mine of wealth is thus opened to those farmers 
who are in position to make use of this fodder. 

For years we have had machines which successfully harvest, thrash, 
and clean the small grains, so that every part of the plants may serve 
some useful purpose. The machinery for the care of the corn crop 
has been much more difficult to develop than any other line of farm 
implements. Altho there has been considera])le progress in the har- 
vesting of corn, no such profound changes have been made as those 
in the harvesting of small grain. The larger part of the crop is still 
husked by hand from the standing plant, and the crop is but j)artially 
utilized. In large sections of the country only the ears are gathered, 
while the leaves and stalks are almost a total loss. 

After the success of mowing and reaping machines, inventors tried 
to develop a corn harvester along the lines followed in the construc- 
tion of those machines. The old methods of harvesting corn fodder 
were slow, expensive, and laborious, and the manufacturers have long 
sought to solve the problem. Their success is not as yet complete, , 
but the labor-saving devices so far perfected have largely changed 
conditions. The corn may now be cut, husked, and shredded with 
less labor than the cutting alone formerly required. 



SIMPLE METHODS OF HARVESTING CORN. 
TOPPING. 

As a stock food, both the ears and the stalk of the corn i)lant have 
been used from the earUest times. The Aztecs and the Peruvian 
Indian tribes practised topping corn for this purpose at the time they 
were conquered by the Spaniards. This method of securing fodder 
was followed by the early colonists and continued to be the common 
method until late in the nineteenth centur}^. It is largely followed 
in Italy, and is still practised in many parts of the South. 

Before topping corn it is necessary to allow the ears to pass the 
silking period in order to secure fertilization. If done before this the 
grain fails to develop. Soon after fertilization has been accom- 
plished the silk rapidly turns brown, and when the kernels have past 
the milky state the corn plant is ready to top. 

The topping was formerly done by a man who, with a sharp knife, 
past along the row of corn and cut off the top just above the ear, and 
also stript the leaves from that part of the stalk left standing in the 
field. The parts cut off were laid in small piles to dry and were 
afterwards tied into bundles. The bundles were set up in little shocks 
and left until the fodder was sufficiently cured, when the}^ were 
hauled away and stacked near the feeding place. This feed was con- 
sidered very valuable and was used for feeding the horses and oxen 
in the spring before the grass came, when the work animals had the 
hardest labor of the year to perform. 

In regard to the advisability of topping corn, the Pennsylvania 
Station " found that, by topping, 1,050 pounds of fodder was obtained, 
at a loss of 540 pounds of ear corn, as compared with allowing the 
corn to ripen and merely gathering the ears. The Mississippi Station,'' 
as a result of a three years' trial, found the net loss in feeding value 
more than 20 per cent. Seven other stations show an average loss 
which was ''more than the feeding value of the fodder secured." 

At the Arkansas Station '^ neither topping nor pulling reduced the 
yield so much as cutting and shocking the whole plant when the ears 
were just past the roasting-ear stage, as shown in the following table: 

Effi'ct of method of harvesting corn on the yield of grain. 



Method of treatment. Yield per acre. ^^^IP^'" 

^ acre. 



j Pounds. 

Left standing till ripe 1, 241 

Topt abovo car 1,224 

Leaves stript 1, 102 

Stalks cut and shocked 1, 075 



Bushels. 
22^ 
2U 
195 
19^ 



Pounds. 



17 
139 
IOC 



« Pennsylvania Sta. Rpt. 1891, pp. .5r>-60. <• Arkansas St;i. Bui. 24, p. 120. 

t Mississippi Sta. Bui. .3;?, p. (14. 



PULLING OR STRIPPING THE LEAVES. 

Thniout the Southern States the leaves of the corn plant dry up 
before the ears are niature, and the custom prevails of stripping the 
leaves from the stalk while they are still green and the ears immature. 
At least 8 experiment stations in the Southern States have investi- 
gated the influence of this practise on the yield of corn and in general 
report a decrease of 10 to 20 per cent. The earlier the work was done 
the greater the loss. Redding, of Georgia,'^ concluded that ''pulling 
fodder" is only expedient under the most favorable circumstances; 
but where it is done" the best practise is to strip the blades, from and 
including the ear blade downward, at about the usual time of pulling, 
and in a week or ten days to cut off the stalks above the ear. Besides 
adding largely to the yield of stover this method is believed to be more 
expeditious. 

The Florida Station'' reports that "pulling fodder" has the effect 
of loosening the husks on the ear before the grain becomes hard, thus 
promoting the ravages of the weevil. 

CORN CUTTING WITH KNIVES. 

The unsatisfactory results which followed when corn was topt or 
stript, together with the extension of corn growing, led the farmers to 
seek a better way of securing fodder. This was found in the method, 
continued to our own time, of cutting the stalk close to the ground at 
a time when no damage is done to the ripening grain and while, at the 
same time, considerable of the saccharine juices still remain in the 
stalk. 

The implement first used for corn cutting was the hoe, or some- 
thing akin to it, and it continued to be used as late as the beginning 
of the nineteenth centur}^. This was rather heavy and awkward to 
handle and the work of harvesting was slow and exhausting. The 
more progressive farmers discarded this crude implement and sub- 
stituted the corn knife. 

The diary of one early planter near Philadelphia tells the way in 
which the corn knife was first used on his farm. ''The use of a 
sharpened blade for cutting corn was first begun by a negro who was 
rather lazier than the rest and always sought to escape the harder 
labors of the farm. He wrapt one end of a broken sithe blade with 
a cloth and, using this for a handle, was able to cut three times as 
much corn as he had cut with the hoe, and that with less fatigue." 

Many kinds of blades were used for the purpose, but among them 
the sithe blade was most largely employed. It was customary to cut 
these blades in two parts. The knife made from the point of the 
sithe was considered the better. It was somewhat lighter in weight 

a Georgia Sta. Bui. 23, pp. 81-82. b Florida Sta. Bui. 16, p. 8. 



Fig. 1.— Com hook. 



than that made from the shank end, and of better shape. Sometimes 
a shank was made by beating and hammering the upper end of the 
blade into proper shape, and sometimes by cutting away the thin part 
o^ ^he blade for a few inches. By many these old homemade knives 
are much preferred to the factory-made knife now almost 
universally used. Th(5 factory-made knives are of all sizes 
and shapes. The corn hook (fig. 1) now extensively used is 
generally considered even more convenient than the corn knife. 
In figure 2 is shown a form of corncutter which is fastened 
to the boot. This implement is pushed with considerable 
force against the stalks, severing them close to the ground. 
It is unnecessary to stoop over the work when using it. 
Another form of this implement is made so as to be fastened 
to the forearm. This form is very convenient for topping. 

When the corn is cut with a corn knife, it is customary to set 
it up in shocks to cure. Shocks vary greatly in size, ranging 
from 6 hills square (36 hills to the shock) to 
16 hills square (256 hills) ; a very common 
size is 12 hills square (144 hills) . Shocks of 
the smaller sizes are common in the North 
Atlantic States, where, according to the 
Connecticut Station, it is more difficult to 
preserve flint-corn stover; while 10 hills square and 12 hills square 
are common sizes in the North Central States. A common method 
is to tie the tops of 4 hills together as they stand, and then to cut and 
shock the rest of the plants around these. 
This form is called a four-saddle shock. 
Another method of making the shock is to 
use a wooden horse as a temporary support. 
In either case the shock is built around the 
support with great care to prevent it from 
being blown over b}^ heavy^ winds or dam- 
aged by rain. In some cases the corn is tied 
into small bundles which are set together 
to form the shock; more commonly the 
stalks are gathered as cut and set up an arm- 
ful at a time. Where the wooden horse is 
used, the shock is built about the horse by 
leaning the first bundles or armfuls against 
a pair of projecting arms formed by inserting 
a pole thru a hole bored at right angles to 
the horse (fig. 3). Wlien the shock has been set up the pole is with- 
drawn and the horse removed. When completed, the shock is tightly 
tied near the top. In the past shocks have been tied with bark or 

12211— No. 173—07 2 




Fig. 2.— Foot device for cutting 
corn. 



10 

grass, or more commonly by means of a stalk of corn or two stalks 
twisted together; but now since twine has become cheaper it is 
extensively used. A rope with a hook at one end is sometimes used 
to draw the tops together before tying. Sometimes shocks are 
allowed to stand without being tied. 

After the fodder has become cured, which usually takes about a 
month, the shocks are generally husked by hand in the field, and the 
stover is commonly tied into bundles, tho this is by no means a uni- 
versal practise. The stover is then shocked up again. Frequently 
the stover from two or more shocks of corn is put up in a single shock. 
For convenience in husking a movable table is sometimes used, on 
which the stalks are laid while being husked. The ears are thrown in 
piles on the ground near the shocks, and afterwards hauled to the 
crib. The stover is sometimes hauled to the barn and stored but often 
it is left standing in the field till needed for feeding during the winter. 

It is important to 
choose suitable weather 
conditions for husking, 
since if the plants are too 
dry the stalks will break 
and blades will fall off 
and be lost. On the 
other hand extremely wet 
weather makes the ground 

Fig. 3.— Woodon horse used to support shock. toO Sof t f Or hauliug in the 

corn. 

The cost of these methods of caring for the corn crop varies with 
the locality and the year. Taking the average of the replies to 200 
inquiries, it has been learned that one man is able to cut and shock by 
hand about 34 shocks 12 hills square, or nearly 1 J acres of corn per 
day. The average cost per shock for cutting by hand is 6.5 cents, or 
$1.50 per acre. 

The advantage of cutting the cornstalks and allowing them to cure 
in the field is strikingly illustrated in an experiment conducted at the 
Georgia Experiment Station. " One acre of land was laid off into 
52 4-foot rows, and planted in corn. From 20 of these rows the 
leaves were pulled and carefully cured and weighed. This required 
the labor of four men during two hours, the cost being 40 cents, or 
$1.04 per acre. On the same day 16 rows were cut and shocked, 
which required the time of four men one hour, the cost being only 20 
cents, or 10.65 per acre. The remaining 16 rows were left untouched 
until the ears were fully matured, when they were husked and the 




o Georgia Sta. Bui. 51, pp. 280-281. 



11 

stalks were cut and weighed. On the same day the ears of the other 
lots were husked and weighed, and all the fodder was cut, weighed, 
and shredded. The following table gives the residt of the experiment: 

Results of hurrestiyt^ corn by dij/'crcnt nuthods. 



How harvt'sted. 



SheUcd 
corn. 



1. Blades pullpd: stalks harvested 

2. Blades pulled: stalks not harvested . 

3. Stalks cut and shocked 

4. Ears husked and stalks cut when dry 



Blade 
fodder. 



Bushels. 

47.24 

47.24 

148.74 


Pounds. 
585 
585 


45.43 


. 



Stover. 



Pounds. 
2,012 



3,037 
2,195 



Total 
value of 
product 
per acre. 



S.S5.18 
27.13 
39.55 
31.49 



The total values are based on the following prices : Shelled corn, 50 
cents per bushel; naked, weather-beaten stalks and husks shredded, 
40 cents per hundredweight; the stover, including stalks, blades, and 
shucks from the shocks, 50 cents per hundredweight; cured corn 
blades, 60 cents per hundredweight. 

The plats on which the stalks were cut and shocked yielded 1.5 
bushels more than plats on which blades were pulled, and 3.ol" 
bushels per acre more than the plats on which the stalks were left 
untouched. 

In discussing the experiment, Professor Redding says: 

The economic results are so strikingly in favor of the cutting and shocking method of 
harvesting the corn crop that there can be no further doubt of its great economy. 

The results of the foregoing experiment confirm the experience gained in the last 
five years in regard to methods of harvesting corn, and strengthen the conclusion 
already reached , that it is much more economical to cut the stalks down and shock them 
than to pull the fodder in August or to husk the ears in September or October. 

MACHINES FOR HARVESTING CORN. 



SLED HARVESTERS AND SIMILAR DEVICES. 

As early as the year 1820 attempts were made to construct a 
mechanical corn harvester. From that year until 1892 all attempts 
to perfect such a machine were unsuccessful. The machines invented 

a The larger yield of shelled corn from the plat that was cut and shocked should not 
be counted in favor of that method of harvesting. It is explained as follows in the 
Georgia btdletin just cited: "The increased weight of grain for the plats on which the 
stalks were cut and shocked can be credited to the fact that the ears left on both the 
other series of plats were drier, because fully exposed to the sun and wind. The cause 
of difference was overlooked at the time and until too late to remedy. * * * N,, 
gain in the weight of grain from the cut and shocked plats was expected, and the results 
would have been ent irely satisfaftory had there lieen a small loss as the result of cutting 
down the stalks." — Editor. 



12 




Fig. 4.— One-row slod liarvcster. 



were patterned after the mower and the reaper, but owing to the size 
of the corn plant these machines either would not cut at all or were 
soon broken imder the heavy strain. Some of the machines, how- 
ever, had commendable mechanical features which were embodied 
in machines invented later. 

Many homemade harvestino; devices of the sled pattern have been 
made from time to time, some of which are illustrated in figures 4, 5, 

and 6. The first harvester 
of this class was patented 
by J. C. Peterson, of West 
Mansfield, Ohio, who put 
one in the field in 1886. 
Others followed and added 
improvements until eight or 
ten harvesters of this kind 
were in the field. 

With most of the sled 
harvesters the driver rode 
on the platform, and it was necessary for him to gather the stalks in his 
arms in advance of the cutting edge, so as to prevent them from falling 
in various directions. This method of harvesting was very exhausting. 
The harvester shown in figure 6 was an improvement, in that the 
guiding arm collected the stalks on the platform and it was only 
necessary for the driver to pick the stalks from the sled at inter- 
vals and throw them on the ground. As an improvement, in order 
to reduce the draft, the sled was mounted on wheels (fig. 7). This 
machine cuts two rows at a time, 
and two men sit on the platform, 
one facing each row, to guide the 
corn against the cutting edge with 
one hand, and with the other hand 
and arm to collect the cut corn on 
the tilting-side part or wing of the 
platform, drawing it back against 
the leg, where it is assembled until 
enough has been collected to form 
a shock. The stalks are then tied 

together into a small shock, and the side platform is so tilted as to 
deposit it upon the ground in an upright position. This form of corn 
harvester is still used quite extensively. It has automatic knife 
guards by which the cutting edge of the knife is covered with a plate 
of steel when the machine is not in use. This lessens the danger of 
injury to men and animals, which often liappens when the cutting 
blades are left exposed. The tilting parts or wings of the platform 




Fig. 5. — Two-row sled harvester. 



13 

may be raised into a vertical position to pass obstructions, or may be 
folded back against the seat standard. The wheels can be adjusted 
to cut corn hio-h or low. 




Fig. 6.— Improved one-row harvester. 

To reduce the labor involved in cutting corn with the machines 
described, another form of corn harvester was invented, as shown in 
figures 8 and 9. This machine consists of two driving wheels, between 
which is mounted the frame for the driving mechanism and platform. 
It is drawn by one horse, which walks between the two rows that are 
cut at the same time. The dividers pick up the lodged corn, except 




Fig. 



-Corn liarvestor with automatic knife guards. 



such as lies in the row of corn away from the machine, and guide it 
to the cutting apparatus, which consists of two stationary side blades, 
above which is a mova])le sickle, which cuts the corn and deposits it 



14 

horizontally on a platform that is elevated about 6 inches above the 
cutting apparatus. On the inner side is a guide chain, which assists 
in directing the stalks of corn to the knife and the platform. The 
rear part of the machine is provided with a small wheel, above which 
is a tilting, lever, by means of which the dividers in front can be 
raised or lowered to gather up the lodged corn until it comes in con- 
tact with the endless chain, which carries it backward until it is cut 
and deposited on the platform, as shown in figure 9. The macliine 
shown in figure 8 has low wheels and stationary cut, while the one 
shown in figure 9 can, by means of side levers, be adjusted to cut the 
corn from 2 to 15 inches from the o-round. 




Fig. 8.— Two-row com harvester with stiitioiiarv lift. 



Machines of this type gather and cut the corn and droj) it on the 
platform. When there is enough to start a shoclc the horse is sto])t 
and the two men who follow the machine gather the corn from the 
])latform and set it up around the shock ])()le and tie it. They then 
start the horse again, and when returning across the field the horse is 
stopt opposite the shock, to which more corn is added, and this is 
continued until the shock is of the desired size. When the shock row 
has been started the shock pole is pushed in so as to be out of the way 
(fig. 8) while the balance of the corn is being cut. This will save 
carrying the corn around the pole. Tlie machine may also be backed 
up to the shock instead of the corn being carried to it from the 
machine. 



15 



The sled liarvesters and corn harvesters of the same type var}^ in 
price from $5 for the simpler forms, which are made at home by the 
farmer, to $55 for the more ela])orate machines as shown in figures 8 
and 9. These harvesters have one great advantage over the more 
complicated machines in that the first cost is low. For this reason 
every farmer, even with only a few acres of corn to cut, can afford to 
have one. It requires but one horse for motive power, and very 
little if any twine is used to tie the shocks. However, if the corn is 
tangled or lodged the cruder forms of these harvesters can not be used, 
as the corn must stand straight and the horse walk rather fast in 
order that the harvester may do perfect work. It is also rather hard 
work for the men to gather and shock the corn. The work of har- 







m 



Fig. 0. — Rear view of two-row com harvester. 

vesting corn is such that only the best construction can withstand 
the strain for any great while, and hence these machines are being 
used less than formerh", even in those sections of the country where 
they were once extensively introduced. 

In regard to the cost of harvesting corn with these macliines the 
following questions were sent out to numerous farmers in various 
sections of the country where corn is raised: 

L With a sled harvester, how many acres of corn can be cut per day? 
2. How much does it cost per acre to harvest corn with a sled harvester? (a) Cost 
of machine . (6) Driver and team . (c) Twine . id) Extra shocker . 

From the 90 replies received in answer to these questions, it was 
learned that the minimum in acreage of corn cut per day is 2 acres, 
and the maximum 10 acres. The average from all the replies 



16 

received equals 4.67 acres of corn which can he cut per day hy two 
men and one horse using the sled harvester. 

In reply to the question as to cost per acre for harvesting corn, 
the minimum price reported was 55 cents per acre and the maximum 
$2. Taking the average of all the replies received, the cost of har- 
vesting corn with a sled harvester is $1.18 per acre. This is estimated 
on a basis of 18 cents per acre, or 84 cents per day for the use of the 
machine and repairs; 4 cents per acre, or 19 cents per day for twine; 
5.S.5 cents per acre, or $2.75 per day for one horse and a man who does 
part of the shocking; and 37.5 cents per acre, or $1.75 per day for the 
other shocker. Comparing this cost per acre with that of hand cut- 
ting (p. 46), it will be noted that there is a saving of 32 cents per 
"Bcre in favor of the machines. It will also be noticed that two men 
and a horse, with a sled harvester, can cut and shock 4.67 acres per 
day as against 1.47 acres per day for one man with a knife, which 
gives a credit of 1.73 acres per day for the work of the horse, or a con- 
siderable saving in favor of the machine. The work may thus be 
done quicker than by hand, which is of importance, as the corn plant 
should be cut promptly just when it is ripe in order to obtain full 
benefit of all its nutrients. 

CORN BINDERS. 

HISTORICAL. 

The credit of inventing corn-harvesting machinery belongs to 
Edmund W. Quincy, of Illinois, as he obtained the first patent on a 
corn-harvesting machine in October, 1850. "Old Father Quincy," 
as he became well known thruout the country, spent more than forty 
years of his life in efforts to produce a machine to pick corn, and dur- 
ing most of that time he lived in abject poverty, wandering from 
place to place pursuing the will-o'-the-wisp of promised assistance, 
using the money tossed to him as alms to construct his crude machines 
or to remedy their defects, going for days without food or shelter, 
faithful to his cherished plan until the end. His machine was essen- 
tially a field picker. Many other inventors worked like Quincy, on 
the idea of a machine to pass over the row and pick the ears from 
the stalks. 

Another form of corn harvester (fig. 10) was invented in the 
"eighties." This machine cut the cornstalks and elevated them into 
a wagon, which was very convenient when the fodder was to be used 
for ensilage. The elevator could be removed and a binder attach- 
ment put on by which the corn was bound into bundles, these being 
left in the field to cure. 

One of the earliest forms of corn harvesters and binders was con- 
structed as a modified form of the grain binder. This machine also 



17 

was so constructed that for the binder attachment a device might be 
substituted to elevate the corn into a wagon. 

The principle in corn harvesters and binders which was destined to 
prevail was invented by A. S. Peck, of Geneva, 111., and patented 
January 5, 1892. It consisted of a corn harvester with the two 
dividers passing one on each side of a row of corn, which was cut and 
carried back in a vertical position to the binder attachment by means 
of chains and gathering arms. A standard twine binder was used^ 
set in a vertical position so as to receive the stalks and keep them in 
this position until the bundle was discharged. The horses were 
hitched behind the machine the same as thev are on the header or 




j'iG. ;0. — An early corn harvester. 

push binder. The machine is shown in figure 11, in operation in 
the field. 

- The Peck patent received very little attention at first. It showed 
very few elements that were new, as the vertical principle of cutting 
grain had been tried and failed to give satisfaction. It was rather 
a rearrangement of well-known principles used in harvesting 
machinery than a new departure. Still it was the collection of these 
principles in proper form which produced a successful ' machine. 
After two years' use by the inventor and a few other persons, its 
merit was recognized b}^ one of the prominent harvester manufacturers. 
In the perfection of farm implements there are usually two stages 
of development. The first covers the conception of the idea and the 
12211— No. 173—07 3 



18 

making; oi an implement that does its work satisfactorily in the hands 
of the inventor. The second stage covers the pioneer efforts to manu- 
facture it and to introduce it into general use. The period from the 
first invention of the corn-harvesting machine by "Father Quincy" 
in 1850, until 1895, may be considered as covering the first stage of 
the development of corn-harvesting machinery, in which many 
machines were made that would work well in the hands of inventors ; 
but almost half a century was required for the designing and perfect- 
ing of these machines so that they might be manufactured for general 
use. During this time much capital was lost in fruitless efforts. 

Since 1895 the self-binding corn harvester has had a considerable 
sale. In practically all of the corn binders now built the features 
of the Peck type predominate. Even the most divergent forms still 
retain the general organization of parts used in the Peck machine. 




Fig. 11. — Vertical corn harvester in tlie field. 

Among the practical and successful corn binders in the market the 
widest divergence from the Peck type is probably to be found in the 
machine invented by John A. Stone, of Chicago. In this machine the 
binder is in an almost horizontal position, instead of vertical. When 
the corn is cut the stalks move a little rearward in an upright position, 
and then they are tripped so that the tops fall rearward onto an 
inclined deck, being guided in their fall toward the binder by curved 
guide arms. The butts are pushed out of the way of the incoming 
cornstalks, and are evened for a bundle by means of a butt adjuster. 
A type of corn binder, which comes about halfway between those 
already described, was invented by Tarrall and Maul, of Batavia, 
N. Y. It is designed to occupy an inclined position over the deck 
for tlic pur])()se of binding the stalks in a semiprostrate position. 



19 



CONSTRUCTION. 



There are, therefore, three different forms of corn binder, namely, 
the vertical, the horizontal, and the inclined, the latter being rather 
a* blending of the two preceding types. These machines differ only 
in the relative position of their elements, being composed of the same 
essential parts. Binders consist essentially of the dividers, of which 
previous mention has been made, and of cutting and binding devices. 
(See figs. 12, 13, and 14.) A bundle carrier is usually also attached, 
but this is not essential to the smooth operation of the machine. 



DIVIDERS. 



The dividers consist of two diverging jaws opening at the front of 
the machine. The jaws begin in two points at the front, but grad- 
ually widen vertically to v/here thev join the frame of the machine, 




Fi::. 12. — Skeleton frame of corn 1 iiider, showing chains. 

when they have a width, or rather a height, of 4 feet or more. By 
an arrangement of levers the points may be raised or lowered. 
Attached to each jaw are two or three traveling chains, whose purpose 
it is to bring the stalks to a vertical position and carry them back to 
the binding deck. The chains are placed one above the other (fig. 12). 
The lower one is known as the short-corn chain, the middle one is 
the conveyor chain, and the upper one is the tall-corn chain. The 
middle chain passes around a sprocket wheel close to the point of the 
jaws, and extends back almost to the binding deck. The upper 
chain begins farther back and extends some distance over the binding 
deck. This chain is meant to carry the tops of tall corn. The lower 
chain is of about the same length as the upper one, begins nearer the 
point of the jaw, and does not extend so far back. These chains are 



20 



supplied with fingers, which take hold of the stalks and lift them to a 
vertical position as the machine advances. The jaws have such a 
position relative to each other as will bring the fingers of the opposite 
chains almost in touch with each other at or near the cutting blades. 
The chains receive their motion from the main driving mechanism, 
and are driven at such speed as will bring the stalks to the proper 
position for cutting without shaking them too severely. 



The cutting arrangement 
consists of a serrated knife 
which passes to and fro 
across two stationary 
blades, one of these being 
attached to each j aw. This 
serrated knife is driven by 
a pitman attached to a 
weighted wheel called a 
"fly wheel." The added 
weight gives enough stored 
energy to sever the toughest 
stalks without shock to the 
small gear wheels (fig. 13). 

Attached to the rear of 
the dividers and extending 
around the binding deck 
are several guide springs 
(fig. 11) which keep the tall 
corn from bending over and 
becoming entangled in the 
binding gear. 

BINDING APPARATUS. 




Fig. 13. — Frame of corn binder, showing mechanism for 
driving cutter knife, gear shaft for driving chains and 
binding device, and roller bearings. 



Just behind the knife and 
thence extending back to 
the bundle carrier, is the butt shoe, or butt carrier (fig. 12). This 
device carries the weight of the stalks after they are cut. It is 
fastened to the frame just behind the knife, but thru the rest of its 
length it is adjustable vertically, so that the binding twine may be 
placed at the proper place on both tall and short corn. 

As the stalks are cut they are carried back by the convej^or chain, 
with their butts resting in the butt carrier until they reach the bind- 
ing deck, where they are pushed backward by the packers, which 
have such a motion as will carry them perpendicularly^ thru the 
binding deck and parallel to it while conveying the stalks to the 
knotter. Their motion is more rapid than that of the chains, but 



21 



they have the advantage of yielding sHghtly while a bundle is being 
tied. This is important, as many ears would otherwise be knocked 
from the stalks by jamming the stalks l:)ehind the needle. 

The needle and the knotter form the binding attachments. They 
are in nearly all cases of the same pattern as are those of the grain 
binders of the same makes, but are made heavier to meet the require- 
ments of the work. 

The packers on these machines (fig. 14) must have such a motion as 
to travel toward the back of the machine as long as they project 
above the binding deck, 
their travel thru the deck 
being fast and of short 
duration. There is one 
machine on the market 
which does not use pack- 
ers at all, but has in- 
stead several chains with 
collapsing fingers. While 
the bundle is being 
formed, these fingers as- 
sume a position perpen- 
dicular to their chains, 
being held so by the 
guides over which they 
travel". As soon, how- 
ever, as the needle moves, 
these guides no longer 
bear against the fingers, 
which collapse when pres- 
sure is .brought to bear 
against them. This pre- 
vents their jamming the 
incoming corn against 
the rib of the needle 
while a bundle is being 
tied and avoids the break- 
ing off of ears that would often occur otherwise. 

When the bundle has been bound the two or three discharge arms 
on the binding shaft have reached the back side of the bundle, and 
by the continuous motion of the shaft the arms force the bundle off 
the deck and discharge it, after which the compressor hook returns 
automatically to its place and the binding shaft stops until another 
bundle is formed, when the operation is repeated. Figure 14 shows 
the binding mechanism and the general arrangement of the several 
parts referred to. 




Fig. 14.— Binder attachment: a, needle; 66, packers; c, knot- 
ter cam; dd, compressor hook; eee, discharge arms; /, Butt 
table or butt shoe; g, twine cam. 



22 



SPECIAL FEATURES. 



The parts that are adjustable by lever are the butt shoe, the 
dividers, and in some machines, the binding deck and knotter and 
needle. The whole frame of the machine ma}^ be raised or lowered 
by means of the two worm-and-pinion arrangements, one on the 
grain wheel and one attached to the main drive wheel. 

In the vertical machine the binding mechanism has a vertical posi- 
tion; in the horizontal machine it sits horizontally on the frame, 
and in the inclined machine it is inclined. 

In the horizontal machine it is necessary to extend a conveyor 
chain farther back than in either of the other types, so as to bring the 
tops of the stalks into a horizontal position. In this type, too, the 
bundle carrier extends in a direction parallel to the length of the 
machine. This arrangement is very apt to give trouble from the 
butts of stalks becoming lodged in stubble or soft earth and spreading 
the bundles in disorder upon the ground. This might be avoided 
more or less by giving the bundle a sharp toss, thus freeing the carrier 
before an}^ part of it touches the ground. The fingers of the carrier are 
sometimes made free to move backward and forward so as to prevent 
the drag above referred to. On the vertical and inclined machines 
there is less danger of trouble from this source, as the bundle carriers 
extend across the path of the machine. The smooth operation of the 
carriers depends greatly on the skill of the operator. Too many bun- 
dles crowd the carrier and prevent the binding attachment from 
properly freeing itself, causing the leaves of the stalks in one bundle 
to become wrapt about the stalks in another. 

The tall-corn chains may be removed where the corn is short or of 
medium height, and in clean fields of tall corn the short-corn chains 
are unnecessary. In short corn the lower chain has sometimes 
proven inadequate alone to properly convey the stalks to the binding 
deck. By the addition of a small iron rod or spring (shown at a, 
figure 12, p. 19) on each of the dividers, the choking of the binding 
gear is prevented and a more nearly perfect bundle is made. A short 
iron bar has also been added on many machines to serve the same 
purpose. This is usually placed in a horizontal position between 
the lower and middle chains. The dividers are adjustable vertically, 
allowing them to pick up corn that is lying flat upon the ground, the 
lever being in reach of the driver. 

To protect the mechanism from the stalks of the uncut rows, a 
guide rod of hickory or other tough wood is usually attached to the 
dividers and extended as far back as is necessary. It may be raised 
or lowered independently of the dividers, however, so as to give pro- 
tection against either tall or short corn. This bar is shown at the 
left in figure 15, and the tilting lever on the right. 



23 



Badly tangled fields make the progress of one of these machines 
slow, but it is remarkable with what precision the chain conveyors 
right the stalks. The adjustment is accomplished by tilting the 
machine forward or backward by the tilting leyer, according to 
whether it is desired to lower or raise the points of the dividers. As 
the weight is almost eyenly distributed on either side of the main 
shaft, it takes but a very little power to bring the dividers into the 
desired position. 

There are two types of these dividers — the vertical (see fig. 11, 
p. 18) and the inclined (fig. 15). For the vertical it is claimed that 
little jostling is given the corn, decreasing the danger of knocking off 
ears, while advocates of the inclined pattern claim to accomplish the 




Fig. 15.— Inclined corn binder, showing tilting lever and guide rod. 

same result by allowing the stalks to recline against the inner jaw 
and be carried backward between the fingers of the conveyor chain 
on that side. 

Owing to the great variation in height of corn, even in the same 
field, the binding attachments are given great range of operation. 
In some machines they are placed as high as 32 inches. On machines 
of this range it is customary to have two needles, each covering half 
of the variation in the position of the knotter. With such a large 
range as this it is possible to tie the bundles sufficiently low without 
raising tlie stalks an}^ great distance, thereby reducing the work 
required of the macliine. In most machines the motion is taken 



24 



from the inside* in some, however, it is taken from the outside hub 
of the main driver (see fig. 13, p. 20). The arrangements for reducing 
friction and excluding dust from the bearings receive careful atten- 
tion, as may be noted from the numerous roller bearings and brass- 
bearing boxes. Gears are also protected wherever possible, to pre- 
vent wear from dirt and grit. Where gears are not properly protected 
and oiled there is apt to be a great loss of power, to say nothing of 
the wear. When they receive careful attention, however, the power 
required to move them is reduced considerably below that required 

for chain and sprocket. 
The driving power is in- 
creased by means of lugs 
cast or riveted on the rim 
of the main drive (fig. 15). 
They are made of various 
shapes^ the object of all be- 
ing to sink into the earth 
in such a way as to prevent 
slipping. Tubing, angle 
iron, and bar iron are used 
almost exclusively in the 
construction of the frames. 
These give strength and 
lightness, features which 
are most essential to a per- 
fect machine. The attend- 
ant, from his seat on the 
machine, has perfect con- 
trol over all parts. The 
levers at his side operate 
all adjustments, and the 
position of the bundle car- 
rier is controlled by a foot- 
lever attachment. 

These machines weigh, 
complete, from 1,400 to 
1 ,800 pounds. Generally 
speaking, those weigliing in the neighborhood of 1,500 pounds have 
been most successful, this weight seeming to give the proper relation 
between driving power and durability. 

The corn binder is used to greatest advantage in fields where the 
corn is check-rowed, as it is possible to cut around a block, keeping 
the machine constantly in operation. 

When the corn is cut high with a corn binder the farmer experiences 
considerable difficulty in getting rid of the corn stubble. In order 




Fig. 16. — Corn-stubble cutter, attached to corn harvester. 



25 

to obtain a clear field and to have the cornstalks cut close to the 
ground, an attachment has been invented as shown in figure 16. 
This knife is attached to the underside of the machine and floats on 
the ground, cutting the stalks even with the surface. The cutter (D) 
has a drawing, slanting cut against spring resistance (E), making a 
clean cut. When this attachment is used the binder is usually set to 
cut higher. The stubs, if cut when sappy, will decay quickly, and 
are .left on the ground to form humus in the soil ; and the ground 
ma}^ be prepared for the next crop with greater thoroness. 

DRAFT. * 

The following results were obtained in draft tests of corn binders 
made by the author at the Iowa State College: 

Draft tests of corn binders. 



Binder. 


Condition of soil. 


Empty, out 
of gear. 


Empty, in 
gear. 


Cutting, 
not bind- 
ing. 


Cutting 
and bind- 
ing. 


Cutting 
and bind- 
ing with 
rows as 
cultivated. 


1 


Medium soft 


Pounds. 
351 
372 
290 
235 
267 


Pounds. 
328 
415 
332 
352 
298 


Pounds. 
465 
575 
492 
463 
451 


Pounds. 
480 
600 
496 
500 
468 


Pounds. 
496 


2 


Drj' 


592 


3 


do : 

do 

do 




4 
5 


473 

448 




Average draft 


283 


345 


489 


509 


502 



The average draft on corn binders is about the same as that of a 
6-foot grain binder. The corn binder should, therefore, be propelled 
by three horses, the same as are required for grain binders. Draft 
tests of the corn binder, with a stubble-cutter attachment, shows the 
following results: 

Draft of corn binder with and without stubble cutter. 

Pounds. 

Draft with stubble cutter 437 

Draft without stubble cutter 420 

Draft of stubble cutter 17 



COST AND EFFICIENCY. 

In order to obtain full information regarding the efficiency of corn 
binders, the following questions were sent out to numerous farmers 
using corn binders in different sections of the country : 

1. How many acres of corn can one man and three horses cut per ten-hour day with 
a corn binder? 

2. How many acres can one man shock per day after a corn binder? 

3. How many pounds of twine per acre of corn is used when using a corn binder? 

4. "What is the life, in years or acres cut, of a corn binder? 

5. What is the total cost per acre for harvesting corn with a corn binder? (a) Cost 
of machine . (b) Driver and team . (c) Twine . (d) Shockers . 



26 

The average results, taken from the several hundred replies received 
to this letter of inquiry, indicate that for all conditions of corn, the 
average number of acres of corn cut per day with a corn binder using 
three horses, is 7.73 acres. The average number of acres which one 
man can shock per day after a corn binder is 3.31 acres. The average 
number of pounds of twine used per acre of corn cut is 2.44. The 
average life in years of corn binders is 8.17, and in acres of corn cut, 
668.77. The average first cost of corn binders is $125. The average 
cost of machine per acre cut, which includes price of macliine, repairs, 
and interest on the investment, is 29 cents per acre ; the cost of driver 
and team per'acre cut is 46 cents, or $3.55 per day; the cost of twine 
is 30.5 cents per acre. The cost of shocking the corn after a corn 
binder is 44.8 cents per acre. This gives the total cost per acre of 
harvesting corn with a corn binder, $1.50. 

The cost of cutting corn with the corn harvester and binder is, 
therefore, the same as the cost for cutting corn by hand, and 32 cents 
per acre higher than the cost of cutting with a sled harvester. This 
extra cost of cutting with the corn binder over the cost of cutting 
with a sled harvester may be attributed to the cost of the twine and 
the interest on the investment in the higher first cost of the corn 
binder. The corn binder has, however, proved a usefid implement, 
the advantage over the other methods mentioned being the amount 
of work which can be accomplished per day and the general ease 
with which the work can be done. 

One disadvantage which may be credited to the corn binder is that 
it knocks off more or less ears of corn, which either have to be picked 
up by hand, at a cost of about 10 cents per acre, or left to waste or to 
be found by the cattle after the field is cleared. 

Farmers who have not sufficient corn to cut to make it profitable 
to purchase machines sometimes hire the work done at a rate of 75 
cents to $1 per acre for the use of the machine, the driver, and the 
team. The average cost of cutting given above was 29 cents per acre 
for the use of the machine, and 46 cents per acre for the driver and 
team, or 75 cents per acre. The charge for hiring the work done is 
only slightly above this. 

THE CORN SHOCKER. 

It is a curious fact that altho earlier efforts w^ere centered upon 
the construction of the corn shocker, the perfection of this machine 
was delayed until after the introduction of the corn binder. In the 
first machines the inventor attempted to engage the stalks by extend- 
ing rods or springs in advance of the cutting knives, but this did not 
prove as successful as did the dividers of the corn binder. With these 
the corn could readily be brought to an erect position and thus made 
into a perfect shock. 



LM 



DESCRIPTION. 

The present corn shocker was invented in 1888, and a machine was 
constructed that year by A. N. Hadley. It was built with a frame 
mounted on two wheels the same as the corn binder, and consisted of a 
corn-gathering device — revolving reels on vertical standards, the 
upper bearings of which were arranged for adjustment laterally, and 
fore and aft. It had as a cutting device two circular rotating cutters 
operating against each other and cutting the corn as the machine 
advanced toward it. 
Behind the cutting 
device was a circular 
rotating table 5 feet 
in diameter, upon 
which the corn was 
collected vertically to 
form a shock. On 
this table were sev- 
eral radial ribs, which 
aided in revolving the 
standing corn. In the 
center of this table 
was a rotating shock- 
forming standard hav- 
ing radial arms, 
around which the corn 
was collected. A re- 
volving crane w a s 
mounted on the frame 
and a rope and pulley 
attached above the 
shock by which it 
could be lifted from 
the platform and de- 
posited on the ground. 

In 1893 a shocker 
was constructed by J. M. Shively, similar in principle but somewhat 
departing in its construction from the Hadley shocker in that the 
cutting apparatus and the dividers were like those of the corn har- 
vester, and the retaining wall surrounding the shock-forming table 
was somewhat liigher than that on the Hadley shocker. 

The present form of shocker (fig. 17) consists essentially of the 
dividers already described in connection with the corn binder, a revolv- 
ing table for assembling the shock, and a crane for removing it. The 
knives and llv-wheel attachment for cutting the stalks, and the 




Fig. 17. — Corn harvester and shocker. 



28 

arrangements for raising or lowering the dividers, and the frame are 
similar to those used on the corn binder. The table revolves in the 
direction indicated by the arrow, and receives its motion from a bevel 
gear driven from the main drive and meshing into a rack on the outer 
edge of the table. As the machine advances the stalks are carried 
thru the opening in the guard band. They are then caught by the 
spiral plates and the arms and forced around the central post. The 
arms also revolve, receiving their motion thru the central pin from 
a gear locatecV just beneath the table. Their motion is somewhat 
slower than that of the table. The guard or tension springs keep the 
stalks fu"mly compressed about the central post. Sometimes the 
twine is tied to one of the arms and allowed to assist in bringing the 
stalks toward the center by being wound about them as the arms 
revolve. This practise adds to the expense of operating the machine 
and does not materially improve the character of the work. At the 
outer edge are posts which support the tension springs. 

When the shock is fully assembled on the table it must be tied by 
hand. The shock may then be raised from the table by turning the 
crank, and winding the rope about a spool. The shock must be lifted 
high enough to clear the retaining wall. The tension springs are 
swung aside and the crank acting on a sector gear swings the shock 
free from the machine, as shown in Plate I. 

The arms (fig. 17), which are held in a horizontal position by the 
weight of the shock, are released the instant the rope is given slack. 
This release of the arms is brought about hj a unique arrangement of 
a cam and pawls. When the rope is tight owing to the weight of the 
shock, the pawls are held in the grooves of the cam because the 
weight is carried from the pulley. Wlien the rope is given slack the 
pawls are no longer kept from slipping out of the grooves in the cam, 
the shock moves thru a small arc of a circle and drops to the 
ground. The central supporting post is raised to its position on the 
machine, as shown in Plate I, figure 2. The whole operation of form- 
ing, tying, and setting a shock can be done in five minutes. The shocks 
are somewhat smaller than those ordinarily made where corn is cut by 
hand or with a binder, averaging about 100 hills per shock, but the 
smaller size is necessary and makes it possible to reduce the weight of 
the machine. The smaller shocks also tend to cure more rapidly. The 
adjustment of the frame admits of the low cutting of the stalks. This 
results in a greater weight of fodder per acre and leaves a short stubble 
that is easily turned under at the spring plowing. 

COST AND EFFICIENCY. 

Corn shockers cost about as much as corn binders and weigh approx- 
imately the same. The wear and tear on the shocker is probably not 
so great as on the binder, and the former has the added advantage of 



U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bui. 173, Office of Expt. Stations. Irrig. and Dram. Invest. 



Plate 




Fig. 1.— Corn Shuckek Unloading the Shuuk. 





\ 


. 






i 


\\ 


m 


.s^^m 


^^mwm 


'I SW'^'^'^ ■""'■ 




■7 V' c'^-P 




It-l'' - '' ■■ 




^ 


I- ' 


.•>..V - ■ 


mi; "'•' 


\ 


W ■ 




^^^^^^H^c.f ' 





Fig. 2.— Corn Shockeh Retuhning the Central Core. 



'29 

requiring the work of but one man, whereas the binder requires, besides 
the driver, two or three men to follow and set up the shocks. The use 
of a corn shocker removes much of the hard labor of farming. Shock- 
ing corn is generally considered hard work and farm hands employed 
only for that purpose demand a good price for their services. 

In order to obtain a comparison between the merits of corn binders 
and corn shockers for harvesting corn, the following questions were 
asked numerous users of corn shockers: 

1. How many acres per ten-hour day can be harvested with a corn shocker? 

2. What does it cost per acre to harvest corn with a corn shocker? (a) Cost of 
machine ; (6) cost of man and team ; (c) cost of twine . 

From the replies to these questions and from personal knowledge 
acquired in the field, it has been learned that the corn shocker seems 
to be the machine that meets the requirements of owners of small 
farms who do most of their own work. It requires a man of more abil- 
ity to run a corn shocker than is required in operating a corn binder, 
on account of the numerous movements that the operator has to go 
thru, all at the proper time, in removing the shock from the 
machine. The time of five minutes is about the average required for 
making the shock, half of this time being occupied in stopping the 
team, tying the top, lifting the shock, swinging the crane, releasing the 
core from the shock, and returning it to the table. 

Recently patents have been issued for a horsepower lifting attach- 
ment for shockers, which consists of a folding tongue, to the top 
portion of which the whiffletrees are attached. To these is attached 
a cable, which is wound around a drum, the other end being attached 
to the lifting device. When the shock is ready to be lifted, a spring 
catch is released and the horses started forward. The machine 
remains stationar^^, but the forward movement of the horses lifts the 
shock by means of the cable, from the table. When the core has 
been returned to the table the horses are backed up to their former 
position, and the spring catch fastens the tongue in place ready for 
the forward movement of the machine. The addition of such a 
device will greatly reduce the work of the operator. 

In the replies to the cjuestions it is found that the average number 
of acres of corn which can be cut per day w4th a corn shocker, three 
horses, and one man, is 4.7 acres. The life of the corn shocker, in 
years and acres cut, has not been ascertained, but as the wear and 
tear is less than on a corn binder, the life of the machine ought to 
be greater. Assuming that the allowance for first cost, life of machine, 
and interest on investment is the same as that for the corn binder — 
i. e., 29 cents per acre; allowing $3.55 per day for driver and team, 
or 75 cents per acre; and estimating that the twine required per acre 
cut with the shocker will not cost over 2 cents, we have a total cost 
of harvesting corn with a corn shocker of $1.06 per acre. This com- 



80 

pared with the cost of $1.18 per acre for harvesting with a sled 
harvester, and $1.50 per acre for corn binders or by hand, gives quite 
an advantage in favor of the corn shocker. 

The manual labor in harvesting corn is the least when using the 
shocker. 

The shock made by the corn shocker is not so easily loaded on a 
wagon as is that made by a corn binder, as the individual bundles 
may be loaded with a pitchfork, whereas the whole shock made with 
a shocker can best be loaded at once, and this requires some form of 
loading device or horsepower derrick. 

The corn binder is well adapted for cutting corn for the silo, as the 
bundles are bound into convenient size to be loaded on a wagon, thus 
saving considerable of the work necessitated by handling loose stalks 
in the field and at the cutter. However, this saving of labor is 
accomplished at the cost of twine, which remains around the bundles 
for less than an hour and is a total waste when cut. A corn shocker 
arranged to load the shocks on a wagon would no doubt prove the 
cheapest method of harvesting corn for the silo. 

The general verdict of farmers who have used both the corn binder 
and the shocker is that the shocker is the preferable machine for 
harvesting corn. 

A CORN-SHOCK LOADER. 

A loading device for handling corn shocks adds greatly to the value 
of the shocker, for with it the corn can be more cheaply handled than 
by the present methods. One of the first devices of this kind con- 
sisted of a long pole or pipe supported on a fidcrum at the rear end 
of the wagon in such a way as to give considerable leverage. The 
idea was much like that of the old well sweep with the semirotary 
motion added. 

An improved loading device which can be carried along with the 
wagon or left in the field and driven about independently, has been 
invente'd (PI. II). It is mounted on four wheels and consists of an 
adjustable vertical mast on which is a horizontal steel cross-arm. 
On this is mounted a traveling block fitted with pulleys, thru 
which a rope passes. To the end of this rope is attached a horse, 
which lifts the load. For loading corn shocks, a grapple fork is 
used, which is slipt under the shock. The grapple arms are closed 
and with the pull of the horse the shock is lifted up on the wagon and 
laid on its side or stood on end, the grapple arms being released by 
simply turning the handle of the fork. This machine was originally 
designed to load corn shocks, and it easily handles two shocks per 
minute, and will bear a stress of 2,000 jiounds. It can also be 
applied to many other uses on the farm, as well as commercial uses, 



U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bui. 173, Office of Expt. Stations, Irrig. and Drain. Invest. 



Plate II. 




Fig. 1 .—Corn-shock Loader, Loaded. 




Fig. 2.— Corn-shock Loader, Empty. 



31 

such as loading hay, manure, small grain, and other heavy objects 
on the farm; and'for loading dirt, lumber, or telephone poles. Some 
form of loading device will greatly reduce the hard work on the farm 
and will be the means of rapidly introducing the corn shocker. 

CORN PICKERS. 

In the so-called ''corn belt," where corn is the principal crop raised, 
it has not been possible so far to utilize all of the cornstalks, as there 
is not enough live stock to eat them. The crop is raised for the ears, 
wliich are picked by hand at maturity. A wagon is driven along the 
rows of corn and one or two men walk along the rows, husk the ears 
from the stalks, and toss them into the wagon. It is estimated that 
50,000,000 acres of corn are annually gathered in this way. This is 
somewhat tedious work. It is usually done after the other fall work 
on the farm has been finished, at a time of year when the weather is 
often cold and disagreeable. It is often difficult for the farmers to 
secure capable men to do this work at the time they are needed, even 
at good wages. To relieve them, inventors have been busy for over 
fift}^ years trying to build and perfect a machine to pick the corn from 
the stalks. 

DESCRIPTION. . 

The first machine for this purpose was invented by "Father 
Quincy" in 1850. The picking mechanism of his machine consisted 
of a revolving cylinder on which were placed four rows of projecting 
metallic fingers placed at such a distance apart as to permit of the 
passage of the stalks but not the ears; these were snapt off and 
were received on an inclined conveyor belt which discharged them 
into a spout, from which they slid into a wagon driven alongside of 
the machine. 

Only a short time after the Quincy patent had been issued another 
one was given to William Watson, of Chicago. His machine was 
somewhat more elaborate than that of Quincy in that it was provided 
with a cylinder and concave designed to husk and shell the corn. 
Practically all of the corn pickers consisted of rollers inclining up, 
in such a way that the front end of the rollers would pass below the 
lowermost ears and rake the stalk from the bottom to the top. A 
great many devices were employed for removing the ears, such as 
cutters, gathering prongs, rotating toothed cylinders, roller and 
breaker devices, parallel vibrating bars, etc. 

All of the early machines were designed to be pushed from the rear 
and were provided with some form of dividers to guide the corn to 
the snapping devices, as shown in figure 18. The snapping-roller 
type of corn picker received serious attention from manufacturers 



32 



about 1874, when the first machine of this type was invented, but it 
was ten years later that it was patented. The rohers were placed in 
the inclined position for the stalks of corn to pass between them. 
The end portions of the rollers where the stalks entered were provided 
with bars designed to aid in snapping off the ears as the stalks past 
down between the rollers during the advance of the machine. For the 
remainder of their length the rollers were so constructed as to tear the 

husks from the ears and continuously feed 
the ears along to be finally discharged, husked, 
onto a conveyor, and delivered into suit- 
able receptacles. This particular machine 
was thought to promise success, but when 
the corn binders began to be developed and 
came into use the interest in corn pickers 
abated, as it was thought that with a suc- 
cessful corn binder there would be no need 
of corn pickers. However, the use of the corn 
binder and the shocker, while quite extensive, 
does not solve the corn-harvesting problem 
in the purely corn-raising regions, where a 
large share of the corn is still picked by hand 
from the stalks as they stand in the field. 

About 1902 the attention of tnanufacturers 
was again turned to corn pickers and several 
machines are now being introduced for pick- 
ing corn . The corn picker as now^ constructed 
resembles the corn binder in the construc- 
tion of the main frame, drive wheels, and 
dividers. It passes along the row of corn, 
which is straddled by the dividers, and the 
stalks after being righted by the points, 
chains, and other devices, pass between a pair 
of inclined, corrugated rollers that snap or 
strip off the ears. The rollers are positioned 
so that the ears fall naturally into a trough 
that extends along beside them. In order to 
provide snapping rollers to remove the ears 
and force them to fall always to the same side, yet permit free entrance 
of the upright stalks at the receiving end without the necessity of auxil- 
iary means to bend the stalks laterally, James E. Goodhue arranged the 
snapping rollers in slightly skewed relation, by which the upright stalk 
may be gradually forced to one side as the picking rolls pass along, and 
the ears are broken ofl" and directed to one side. The ears are carried 
back by a traveling conveyor and either delivered to a set of husking 





Fig. is. — A corn-picking ma- 
chine. 



U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bui. 173, Office of Expt Stations. Irrig. and Dram. Invest. 



Plate III. 




33 

roils or else, without being husked, carried by an elevator and deliv- 
ered into a wagon which is driven alongside the machine. 

Another form of modern practical corn picker has the guide chains 
with the usual prongs for straightening up the stalks. The chains 
form a stalk passage extending rearward thru the machine. A rap- 
idly moving chain provided with fingers is located at one side and 
between the guide chains in such a position that as the machme passes 
over the row the fingers engage the ears on the stalks and snap them 
ofl". By means of a deflector the ears are directed to a receptacle 
from which they are carried to the husking rollers and thence to the 
wagon. The tops of the cornstalks are cut oft", and by means of a 
conveyor this and other trash is carried to the rear and dropt on the 
ground. This machine is shown in Plate III. 

OBJECTIONS AND ADVANTAGES. 

The corn picker is intended to remove the ears from the stalks, 
which are left in the field. Most of the machines are built on the 
assumption that the stalks are valueless, and therefore they are prac- 
tically destroyed. It has not been possible to construct a picker 
that will not to some extent break down or tear down the stalks. 
This is somewhat objectionable because, where the corn is picked by 
hand, the dried corn leaves and stalks serve as roughage for cattle 
during the fall and winter. The machine has, however, this advan- 
tage, that the field can be picked quicker and the cattle turned in 
earlier to make use of the roughage before the snow falls. 

Another objectionable feature of the corn picker as compared with 
the hand method of picking corn is that it shells considerable corn; 
and, if the corn is lodged and tangled, more or less ears are mist by 
the machine. The corn picker with the husker attachment requires 
considerable motive power, at least four horses being required to pull 
it. For this reason some manufacturers have dispensed with the 
husking attachment and depend upon the snapping rollers for 
removing most of the husks. Machines of this kind will remove from 
25 to 75 per cent of the husks, depending upon the stage of maturity 
of the corn, the brittleness of the stalks, and the effects of freezing and 
damp weather. Where machines without the husker attachment are 
used, a stationary husker may be provided at the crib, in which the 
corn is husked and elevated into the corncrib. 

There is a variance of opinion among the farmers as to the advisa- 
bility of husking the ears clean. In the South the common practise 
is to leave the husks on the ears, and it is claimed that this practise 
tends to prevent injury by insects. In the North it is the common 
practise to husk the ears clean before they are cribbed. 

The objections offered, in reply to inquiries, to using a corn picker 
which leaves the husks on the ears are that more crib room is required 



34 

for the ears ; that they will serve to attract and harbor rats and mice ; 
that the ears will not dry out, but w ill be liable to mold ; that the husks 
interfere with the shelling; that, while for feeding cattle and hogs the 
husks will be advantageous as they will serve as a roughage, horses 
will toss the ears in trying to remove the husks, and thus lose ear and 
all. For selling purposes the corn needs to be husked clean in order 
to command the best market price. 

The economic side of corn pickers may be profitably considered. 
The corn picker should last about as long as the corn binder, or 8.17 
years, and pick about the same number of acres per day as can be 
harvested with a corn binder, or 7.73 acres. The first cost of the 
machine is, however, practically twice that of the corn binder, or on 
an average, $250. This makes the cost of machine, interest on the 
investment, and repairs equal to 58 cents per acre. The cost of 
driver and team is $3.55 per day, or 46 cents per acre. There is 
required two wagons w ith teams to remove the corn from the machine 
and deliver it into the crib, which, at $3 per day for each, costs $0.77 
per acre, or a total cost of $1.81 per acre for picking corn with a corn 
picker. 

To obtain a comparison between the machine and the hand meth- 
ods of picking corn, the following questions were asked numerous 
farmers : 

What is the average yield of corn per acre in your vicinity? 

What does it cost per bushel, including V)oard of men, to pick corn by hand from 
the field? 

How many bushels of corn per day does the average man pick? 

From the 300 replies received to these questions it has been learned 
that the average ^deld is 44 bushels per acre; that the average cost 
per bushel for picking corn by hand is 3 J cents, and that the average 
man picks 50 bushels of corn per day. This yield is considerably 
above the average given in the crop reports of the United States 
Department of Agriculture, but it represents the yield of corn in 
States where pickers are used. Considering now that the number of 
acres which the corn picker can cover per day is 7.73, this would, for 
the average yield, be 341 bushels of corn per day. It would require 
the time of 5.8 men to do the same work in the same time by hand as is 
done with the machine, at a cost of $11.93 for labor, but in addition 
to the wages of the men there is need of a team and wagon for every 
two men who pick corn by hand to haul the corn to the crib. These 
teams are worth at the very least $1 each per day, or three teams for 
the 7.73 acres would cost $3. The total cost for picking the same 
number of acres of corn by hand as can be picked with a corn picker, 
per day, would be $14.93, or $1.93 per acre, as compared with $1.81 
per acre for machine picking. "WHiile the saving effected with the 
corn picker is not large, the use of a machine-makes the farmer more 



85 

independent of the la])or market, as the work may be done without 
hiring extra men at a time when they are hard to secure. But the 
advantage of hand over machine picking in the removal of the husks 
should not be overlooked. 

The com picker is still an experimental machine. There are a num- 
ber of problems to solve before a wholly efficient picker will be pro- 
duced. The advisability of a farmer purchasing a corn picker is a 
question which each farmer should decide for himself. He may 
safely follow this general rule in the purchase of farm machinery and 
implements of all kinds : A machme newly put on the market, no mat- 
ter how promising, should not be purchased by a farmer on ordinary 
terms, because, even with the greatest care on the part of the manu- 
facturer in designing and constructing the machine, weak points in 
operation and construction are bound to develop, which it will take 
the manufacturer several years to overcome. Not until the machine 
has been perfected should the farmer purchase it. It is best to allow 
the manufacturer to do his own experimenting. If special arrange- 
ment is made whereby the farmer is compensated for aiding the 
manufacturer in developing the machine, that is a different matter. 

ECONOMY OF CORN-HARVESTING MACHINERY. 

The benefits to the farmer of using modern corn-harvesting machin- 
ery have been pointed out, but a question as to when these machines 
are really profitable should also be considered by the successful far- 
mer, viz, how many acres of corn must a man have to harvest each 
year in order to make it a profitable investment for him to purchase 
a corn harvester or corn picker ? 

We have found that the average life of the corn binder is 8.17 years, 
and the cost $125. If a man has only 20 acres of corn to cut per year, 
the cost for the use of the binder for each year would *be $15.30. To 
this should be added $7.20 for interest, making the total annual cost 
of the machine $22.50. Other expenses for cutting the 20 acres of 
corn, according to the previous averages derived, would be $0.20 for 
team and driver, $6.10 for twine, and $8.96 for shockers; or a total 
cost for cutting 20 acres of corn with a corn binder of $46.76, or $2.34 
per acre. We have seen that the work may be done by hand for $1.50 
per acre, and that by hiring a neighbor's team and binder at 75 cents 
per acre, the work may also be done for $1.50 per acre. We may 
then conclude that a farmer who has only 20 acres of corn to cut per 
year and does not intend to cut any for his neighbors would lose 
money by purchasing a corn binder. 

If a farmer has 30 acres of corn to cut per year, the annual cost of 
the machine, including interest, would be 75 cents per acre. It will 
require a cut of at least 80 acres per year before the farmer can prop- 
erly estimate the cost per acre for the use of the machine to be 29 



36 

cents, as already given. It may, therefore, be concluded as a general 
proposition that unless this number of acres is available for cutting 
each year, the investment in a corn binder is not profitable. 

These estimates may not be exactly fair, because if the corn binder 
cuts but 20 acres per year, the life of the machine would probably be 
considerably longer than eight years. This would in a large measure 
depend upon the care the machine received. If left outdoors the 
wear and tear on the machine when not in use would be more than 
when used. However, with proper care it would last longer, and 
there is no doubt that in general half the money which our farmers 
spend for implements could be saved if they gave their implements 
better care when in use, and when not in use protected them in an 
implement shed from wind, rain, sunshine, and farm animals. 

In the same way we may determine when it is advisable to use a 
corn picker. The price of these machines ranges from $200 to $325, 
but if we take $250 as the average price and the average life of the 
machine and acreage cut as previously noted, the cost per year for 
the use of the machine would be $30.59, and interest on the invest- 
ment would be $15. To this should be added about $5 per year for 
repairs, or a total of $50.59 per year for the use of the machine. In 
order to make this machine a profitable investment it should husk 
at least 87 acres of corn each season. Circumstances may alter cases 
and difi^erent conditions change the problem, but in general it is 
better not to invest in expensive implements unless there is sufficient 
work in sight to make them profitable. 

CUTTING AND SHREDDING MACHINES. 

The corn picker should be considered as a temporary machine for 
emergency use only until such a time as the American farmers will 
be able to utilize all of the food products grown on their farms. In 
many instances the great increase in the value of land has brought 
the farmers to realize that unless more scientific methods of agri- 
culture are adopted and the wastes from the farms stopt, they are 
not going to realize proper interest on their investments in their farm 
land and equipment. 

One of the serious wastes on the farm in the past has been the 
neglect of the use of the cornstalks. Thru the efi^orts of experiment 
stations the losses from this source have been determined and their 
enormity pointed out to the farmers. The best method of reducing 
these losses to a minimum has been found to be tliru the use of the 
silo. It is not within the sphere of this bulletin to go into the details 
of the advantages of silos or of their methods of construction, but to 
describe some of the machines used in the preparation of the corn- 
stalks for the silo. 



37 

The implements used for harvesting the corn ]:>lant have been 
described. An important matter to be decided in preserving the 
green-corn fodder in the silo is whether the corn plants are to be put 
into the silo whole or cut up into fine particles. The advocates of 
whole-corn silage claim that there will be smaller losses from fer- 
mentation with whole than with cut silage. No direct proof is, how- 
ever, at hand, and the practise followed must be decided by the 
greater ease of handling the fodder as silage and the relative economy 
of one system or the other in the opinion of each farmer. The 
majority of farmers follow the practise of running the corn thru a 
cutting or shredding machine. 

The feed and ensilage cutters used for cutting or shredding corn 
fodder for the silo and feed for other purposes are of various sizes, 
from the small hand machine shown in figure 19 to the large power- 
driven machine provided with self-feeder and blower attachment, as 
shown in figure 20. The term "fod- 
der shredder" is sometimes errone- 
ously applied to the busker and 
shredder. There is considerable dif- 
ference between the two machines. 
The fodder shredder is similar to the 
ensilage cutter, being provided with 
feed rollers of large diameter between 
which the entire corn plant, ears and 
all, may pass to be converted into 
fodder or ensilage, as the case may 
be ; or it can be used to prepare corn- 
stalks for the silo or for fodder after 
the corn has been husked by hand. Fig. lo.-cyiindrkai feed cutter. 

It differs from the ensilage cutter in 

that it is provided with a shredder head, as shown in figure 21, which 
may be constructed in various ways, but consists usually of a set of saw 
blades so arranged that they will shred the fodder into fine particles, 
whereas the cutter head is fitted with knives which cut the fodder 
into lengths ranging from one-fourth inch to 2 inches. These cutting 
devices are usually interchangeable, so that the user can put into the 
same machine either a cutter head or a shredder head, as best suits 
his needs or preference. 

These machines are provided with safety devices so arranged that 
the feed rolls can be stopt and started at will wliile the machine is 
running. This is quite an advantage, as it prevents the sacrifice 
of fingers, hands, and even of arms. They are also provided with 
friction safety balance wheels and devices for changing the length of 
the cut of fodder. 




38 



No accurate information is at hand as to the difference in power 
required for shredding and for cutting a certain number of tons of 
fodder corn. It is generally conceded that the shredder head requires 
considerable more power and must run at a higher speed than the 
cutter, but the recent improvements in shredder heads have mate- 
rially reduced their necessary speed. Machines of great capacity are 
now on the market shredding as high as 25 tons of fodder per hour. 
In the better forms of shredders the feed rollers are speeded at about 
160 revolutions per minute, while the cutter heads are usually run at 
from 600 to 700 revolutions per minute, and shredder heads at about 
1,000 revolutions per minute. The power required to run the 
machines is from 12 to 15 horsepower. 




I'lc. 20. — Self-feeding ensilage cutter with blower. 

The ensilage cutters and shredders were at first provided with 
swivel carriers driven from bottom, which, by means of metal buckets 
fastened to a chain, elevated the fodder into the silo or mow. Now, 
however, most of the larger machines are provided with blowers, 
which consist of a steel fan inclosed in a case, and a galvanized iron 
pipe usually 10 inches in diameter, extending to the silo or the mow. 
The fan is sometimes mounted on the main shaft of the cutter or shred- 
der head and is thus driven by the same belt that furnishes power to 
the machine. The current of air created by the fan forces the fodder 
into the place desired. For green silage it is necessary to carry the 
pipe nearly perpendicular to the height of the silo window and to put 
an elbow on the top to convey the fodder into the silo. The reason 
for this is that when the pipe is perpendicular, or nearly so, the force 
of the wind created by the fan works directly against the force of 



39 

gravity, which acts upon the silage, whereas when the pipe is slanting 
the silage tends to collect at the lower side of the pipe and the wind 
pressure tends to pass over the silage, thus causing clogging in the 
pipe. 

One of the earliest attempts to turn the stalk into feed in any other 
than its natural condition, or simply to cut it into short lengths by 
means of a cutting machine, is embodied in a machine patented in 
1872, which comprised two parallel gangs of saw-like cutters, between 
which the stalk is cut into short pieces. 



tJ^lrn.^^' 




Fig. 21.— Corn shredder. 



The modern sliredder was first suggested in 1881, as appears from 
a patent granted to Messrs. Behringer, Stouffer, and Potts, of Penn- 
sylvania. This consisted of two rollers between which the cornstalks 
were fed to a cylinder provided with knives that slit the stalk and 
beaters which pounded it, rendering it soft and pliable. 

HUSKERS AND SHREDDERS. 



SIMPLE HUSKING DEVICES. 

One of the earliest devices used for husking corn was the husking 
peg. Several patterns of this are in common use. There are also 
other aids to corn husking made in the form of glovQS, wdth projecting 
points or pegs. Equipped with such a glove the man passes along 
the rows, husks the ears by tearing off the husks and snapping the 
stems, and tosses them into the wagon which is drawn alongside. 
Such husking pegs and gloves are also used in husking corn from the 
shock. 



40 

The early colonists did not remove the husks from the ears immedi- 
ately upon bringing the corn from the fields. They usually snapt 
the ears from the stalks without removing the husks. They held 
that it was better to allow the husks to remain on the ears for pro- 
tection against frost and moisture. Later in the season the crops were 
often husked by husking parties assembled at the various farms in their 
respective communities during the autumn days and early evenings; 
and their work was always followed by some form of merrymaking, 
as a dance or a ''play party/' which often extended into the early 
morning hours. The corn was stored in high cribs erected at con- 
venient points near the other farm buildings. 

EARLIER MECHANICAL HUSKERS. 

The first patent on a corn husker was issued in 1837. The machine 
comprises essentially a pair of roughened parallel rollers designed to 
tear off the husks. This machine represents one of the earliest 
attempts to utilize machinery for preparing the corn cro]:> for the 
market. It assumes that the ear shall be plucked from the stalks 
by hand. 

In 1866 a New York concern began the manufacture of a husker 
having a single snapping roll made of hardwood. Another roller set 
with stiff knives located just behind the hardwood roller, cut the 
stalk into short lengths. The ears of corn as they were broken off 
by the snapping roll fell down upon the husking rolls. These were 
about 2 inches in diameter and rotated toward each other. A small 
revolving shaft set with spikes and located directly above the line of 
contact of the husking rolls, caused the ears to revolve so as to 
present all of the husks to the action of the husking machine. 

Another form of husker consisted of a snapping roll much the same 
as that described above, and several husking rolls whose effective- 
ness depended upon the action of rubber aprons. These past over 
each roller like belts over a pulley, and tended to draw the husks in 
with them. Later, about 1880, the Phillips and Jones machines 
added to this idea by putting on a pair of snapping rolls. These 
were the first really successful buskers. 

COMBINED HUSKERS AND SHREDDERS. 

Thus far no machine had been produced designed to perform more 
than one operation on the stalks, except some of the unsuccessful 
and later experimental harvester types designed to pick and husk 
the ears, as previously described. Between 1880 and 1890 a great 
deal of attention was given to thrashing corn. This practise so bat- 
tered the stalk as to make every part of it available as a cattle food. 
Fodder cutters had been in use for many years, yet this inothod of 
preparing corn fodder left the fibrous part of the stalk in a tough, 



41 

woody conditioai which the cattle did not much reUsh. The bruising 
and shredding action of the thrasher put the stalk in a more palatable 
form. The repeated shortages and failures of the hay crop during 
the decade 1880-90, together with the results of attempts at thrash- 
ing corn led to the invention of the combined husker and shredder, 
which takes the stalks with the ears on them, removes the ears, 
husks them, and prepares the stalks for feeding. A combined husker 
and shredder patented by J. F. Hurd, of Minnesota, in 1890, appli- 
cation having been filed in 1887, is one of the earliest of the shredder 
type. 

There are at this time many different makes of this machine in the 
market. They are of various designs and are frequently made so as 
to be fitted with exchangeable cutter and shredder heads. The 
general construction of all machines of this class is very much the 
same, however. Some are rather complicated in their construction 



f>A/£UMja TIC Sr^KM'^'/f 




Fig. 22.— Skeleton of husker and shredder. 

while others are very elementary. A discussion of one of the more 
complicated will serve to explain the general operation of all. By 
referring to figure 22 the construction will be easily understood. 

The stalks are first fed to the snapping rolls, where the ears are 
broken from them. The stalks are driven forward by the snapping 
rolls until they meet the shredder head, where they are cut to shreds 
by knives of special forms shown in figure 23. The slu'edded parts 
of the stalk fall upon a vibrating carrier whose motion is comple- 
mented by the action of arms. The shreds fall from this carrier into 
the blast from the fodder blower, which carries them up tlii'u the 
stacker. 

The ears which are broken from the stalks by the snapping rolls 
drop upon the husking rolls where the husks are torn from them. 
The husked ears gradually descend along the inclined huskmg rolls 
until they finally fall upon an elevator which carries them to the bin 
or other place provided for them. 



The husks fall upon a conveyor chain which drags them back to the 
fodder blower, where they join the shreds from the stalk. The loose 
gi'ain falls from the vibrating carrier and husk conveyor upon a screen. 
As it falls it is met by a mild blast which removes the dust from it. 
This grain is then collected in a trough or chute and is driven by means 
of a screw conveyor to one side of the machine. 

This machine combines in its construction many elements used in 
earlier machines, both buskers and fodder cutters. The snapping 
rolls and husking pegs are both ideas found in machines described in 
preceding paragraphs, while the shredder heads are not greatly dif- 
ferent from those of the fodder cutters of earlier design. The blower 





mmm 






Fig. 23. — Forms of shredder heads. 

and cleaning and carrying devices are very much like those of the 
thrasher. Self-feeding and safety devices are now largel}^ used as a 
protection against the danger of having one's hand or arm caught in 
the mechanism (fig. 24). Where the self-feeder is used, a revolving 
band cutter is commonly placed a little ahead of the snapping rolls. 
The superior convenience of having the stalks bound into bundles 
is most evident where these machines are used. In bundles the 
stalks keep straight and thus avoid the delay caused by having them 
come to the machine in a disordered condition. There is also less 
danger of choking the machine. Plate IV shows a husker and shred- 
dei' run bv a gasoline engine. 



U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bui. 173, Office of Expt. Stations. Irrig and Drain, Inv 



Plate IV. 




48 



3hrec/c/er /feaaf 



COST OF PREPARING CORN FODDER. 

The cost of preparing corn fodder b}" the various methods and with 
the different machines depends upon a great many Aariable factors. 
It depends upon the yiekl of corn per acre, upon the method of har- 
vesting, upon the distance the fodder is to be hauled, the size and 
efficiency of the working force; the size, capacity", and speed of tlie 
machine, and the motive power used. 

COST OF FILLING THE SILO. 

In cutting corn for ensilage we have the records kept by several 
experiment stations, as to cost, a few of which are here given. 

An accurate record was kept of the cost of harvesting and storing 
45 tons put into the silo in three 
days." The force emplo^^ed was as 
follows: Portable engine, power 
cutter, one two-mule cart with 
mules, one single cart with mule, 
one mule hauling fuel and water for 
engine, one foreman, one engineer 
and fu-eman, two drivers, three corn 
cutters, two men at cutting machine, 
one man packing in silo, one boy 
helper on water cart. 

The items of cost were these : Hire 
of engine and engineer, three days, 
at $4 per day, S12; fuel, $3; teams 
and manual labor in all, $46.40; 
putting cover and weights on silo, 
$3; total, $64.40, or $1.43 per ton. 
It was estimated that the tangled 
condition of the corn in the field 
fully doubled the labor of cutting 
and loading it, and had the ensilage cutter been larger, the same engine 
and fuel could have doubled the quantity cut per day. It is easy to 
see how these improvements might have reduced the cost to $1 per 
ton for storing. 




Fig. 24.— Safety device for shreddr 



Coat of harvesting andjUliny silo, b 
Capacity of machine, per lO-hour day tons. 



50 



Six men in field cutting and loading, at %\:X-> |7. 98 

Two teams hauling, at $2 : 4. 00 

One driver, at $1.33 1. 33 

Two men feeding machine, at %\.'.^?> 2. G6 

Two men packing in silo, at .$1..'') 1 2. 6C 

One man at engine, at |1.33 1. 33 

Coal used, one-fifth ton, at $8 ^ . 1. 60 



Cost of harvesting 50 tons 21. 56 

Cost per ton 43 



o Maryland Sta. Rpt. 1889, p. 103. 



fc Minnesota Sta. Bui. 2, p. 7. 



44 

Professor King found that the average cost of cutting and putting 
corn into the silo, on a number of Wisconsin farms, was 58.8 cents per 
ton." 

Professor Georgeson found that it cost 62.3 cents, 70.9 cents, and 
50.8 cents for tliree different silos, or an average of 61.3 cents, per 
ton of silage put up.^ 

Mr. T. L. Allen, Kinsman, Ohio, says: 

With modern machinery and good management, corn can be put into the silo at 35 to 
40 cents per ton. Indeed, with our large machinery and strong force of men we have 
put it in the silo for less than 30 cents. 

With the larger and improved ensilage cutters having self-feeders * 
and blowers, and the superior methods in handling the corn, it is safe 
to say that corn may be harvested and put into the silo in the form of 
silage, at an average cost of 50 cents per ton. 

COST OF SHREDDED FODDER. 

The cost of making the cornstalk into shredded fodder after it has • 
been, allowed to cure in the field varies in the same way as that of 
preparing silage. We may, however, gather some ideas of the value 
of the machines used for this purpose. 

We have already learned the cost of cutting the corn and putting 
it into shocks, and also that the average cost per bushel of husking 
corn from the shock in the fields is 5.3 cents per bushel, or at an average 
of 44 bushels per acre, the cost will be $2.33 per acre. To this should 
be added about 35 cents per acre for hauling the ears to the crib, or a 
total of $2.68 per acre for husking the corn by hand, and this leaves 
the stover in the field. If the stalks are hauled to the feed lot it will 
involve an additional cost. When buskers and shredders are used for 
husking the corn and shredding the fodder, the farmer will have to 
decide the question as to what method of doing the work he desires 
to employ. There are machines on the market which will husk but 
100 bushels per day, and there are those which will husk 1,000 bushels 
per day. The smaller ones are for the farmer who desires to do his 
own work. 

With the general introduction of the gasoline engine on the farm, 
a small individual outfit (PI. IV) is very desirable. With such an 
outfit the farmer may do his work at his convenience as he needs the 
corn and the fodder, and may also do some work for neighbors, 
which will aid in paying for the machine. It requires one man to 
feed; one to look after the engine, shredder, and the corn in the 
wagon ; one man in the mow to remove the fodder, one to unload the 
wagons, two teams, and one loader in the field. Six gallons of gaso- 
line will supply the fuel for a ten-hour run. The computed cost 
would be: 

oF. W. Well, Book on Silage, p. 118. b Kansas Sta. Bui. 48, p. 37. 



45 

Cost of shredding corn. 

Use of engine and shredder and repairs, per day $1. 00 

Five men, at |1.50 each 7. 50 

Two teams, at $3 each G. 00 

Power, 6 gallons of gasoline, at 15 cents per gallon 90 

Total cost per day 15. 40 

From experiments conducted by the author with the above outfit, 
it was found that the number of bushels husked per hour varied 
considerably with conditions, but that the average was 18 bushels, 
or 180 bushels per day. This, at the average yield of corn per acre 
previously derived, would be equal to 4 acres per day. To husk 180 
bushels by hand and put it in the crib would cost $10.96. This would 
leave a cost of $4.44 for 4 acres of corn fodder shredded and delivered 
in the mow. The average yield of shredded fodder is 2 tons per acre. 
This would give a cost of 55 cents per ton for hauling the fodder from 
the field, shredding it, and placing it in the barn ready to feed. When 
corn has been husked in the field and the farmer wishes the fodder 
shredded, it costs him about $1.50 per acre for shredding the fodder 
by machine. 

With large machines the work of husking and shredding cotn is 
usually custom work. The owner of the machine furnishes the 
shredder and engine, with two men, charging the farmer from 4 to 5 
cents per bushel for this work. The farmer will have to furnish the 
fuel and the teams, as well as the balance of the help to run the 
machine. These large machines require from 6 to 8 teams and 20 to 
25 men for full operation. The large machine, while it does the 
work quickly, has the disadvantage of requiring a large crew of men 
and teams, and if anything goes wrong with either engine or shredder, 
this force is idle at the expense of the farmer until the machine is 
repaired. 

From some investigations conducted by sending out letters of 
inquiry from the Iowa Experiment Station to all parts of the State, 
the following results were obtained: 

From the entire number of reports received, the average cost of machines for shred- 
ding was .$1.55 per acre; the cost of fuel was .31.4 cents; and the total cost of shredding, 
per acre, varied from $2.45 to $6.65. This is a wide range, but the conditions under 
which the shredding was done varied correspondingly according to the distance hauled, 
yield of stover per acre, kind and size of machine used, and work required in moving 
the outfit; also as to physical conditions of the fodder and accidents with machine. 

The average cost of shredding 1,600 acres was found to be $4.41 per acre, and this is 
believed to be a fair average under ordinary conditions. 

The estimate of yield of corn per acre in the above case was 57.25 
bushels, which is rather high even for Iowa; the yield of fodder, 2 tons 
per acre, and the cost of husking in the field, 5 cents per bushel. 
At these figures the cost of shredding the fodder would be 77 cents 
per ton. 



46 

SUMMARY. 

The following: table summarizes the data obtained as to the cost 
and value of corn-harvesting- machines: 

Summary of data regarding corn-harvesting machinery and its use. 
AVERAGE DATA FOR HARVESTING BY HAND. 

Cost of implement $1. 

Number of hills per shock IGO. ^ 

Acres 1 man harvests per day 1.47 acres. 

Cost of cutting and shocking $0,005 per shock; 81.50 per acre. 

AVERAGE DATA FOR HARVESTING WITH SLED HARVESTER. 

Cost of implement $5 to $50. 

Number of hills per shock 144. 

Acres 2 men and 1 horse harvest per day 4.67 acres. 

Cost of cutting and shocking $1.18 per acre. 

AVERAGE DATA FOR HARVESTING WITH CORN BINDER. 

Cost of implement $125. 

Life in years or acres cut 8.17 years; 669 acres. 

Acres cut per day by 1 man and 3 horses 7.73 acres. 

Acres shocked per day, 1 man 3.31 acres. 

Cost of cutting and shocking $1.50 per acre. 

AVERAGE DATA FOR HARVESTING WITH CORN SHOCKER. 

Cost of implement $125. 

Number of hills per shock 100. 

Shocks or acres 1 man and 3 horses harvest per day 151 shocks; 4.67 acres. 

Cost of cutting and shocking $1. 06 per acre. 

Cost per bushel of picking and husking corn. 



By hand from field 

Additional cost of team for cribbing. 
By hand from shock 



Cents. 
3.5 
1.0 
5.3 



Additional cost of team for cribbing. 

By corn picker from field 

By husker and shredder from shock. 



Cents. 
0.79 
4.1 
4.5 



Cost per acre of husking corn and preparing fodder. 



Cutting and shocking corn 

Husking out of shock by hand. . . . . 
Husking and shredding liy machine. 
Hauling and shredding fodder 



Comparative cost. 



By hand. 



.$1..50 
2. 68 



2.50 



6.08 



Sled 
cutter. 



$1.18 
2.68 



2. 50 



6.36 



Binder. 



$1.50 



5.91 



Shocker. 



5.47 



47 



Comparative returns per acre of husking corn from the field, of cutting and feeding from 
shock, and of cutting and shredding by the various methods. 



Method employed. 


Bushel 


s 


Price 


per 


Val 


ue of 


E 


Cost of husking 
per acre. 


Net value of corn. 


per acre. 


bushel. 


acre. 


Sy hand. 


By ma- 
chine. 


Hand. 


Machine. 


Stalks left standing 

Cut, and stalks fed whole 


44 
44 
'44 


SO. 44 
.44 
.44 


$19.36 
19.36 
19.30 


$1.98 
2.68 


$1.80 


$17.38 
16.68 


$17.56 


Cut, and stalks shredded 


1.98 


17.38 












Yield of 

stover 

per 

acre. 

Tons. 


Value 

of 
stover 
per ton. 


Total 

value of 

stalks 

per 

acre. 


Net value of stalks 
per acre. 


Net value of entire 
crop. 


Method employed. 


Hand. 


Large- Indi- 
crew vidual 

ma- 1 ma- 
chines. ' chines. 

1 


Hand. 


Large 
ma- 
chines. 


Small 
ma- 
chines. 


Stalks left standing 




$0.55 








$17.93 


$17.81 




Cut, and stalks fed whole 

Cut, and stalks shredded 


2 

2 


$4.00 
6.00 


8.00 
12.00 


$3.82 
5.32 


$3.82 
6.09 


$4.26 
7.09 


23.18 
24.68 


23.50 
25.45 


$23.62 
26.45 



The net value of the crop is found to be S17.93 for husking by hand 
and leaving the stalks standing in the field. This is obtained by adding 
to the net value of the corn 55 cents per acre for the stalks and sub- 
tracting the cost of husking by hand. 

By allowing 25 cents per acre as the value of the fodder in field 
where corn picker is used, and adding this to the net value of the corn 
and subtracting $1.80 per acre for picking with the machine, we 
derive the net value of the crop of $17.81 for this method of harvest- 
ing, which indicates a small loss per acre as a result of using the corn 
picker. 

The net value of the crop by feeding the stalks whole is obtained 
by taking the total value of the corn and fodder and subtracting the 
costs of cutting and husking by hand, cutting with sled harvester and 
husking by hand, and cutting with corn shocker and husking by hand. 

The net value of the crop by utilizing the fodder in the shredded 
form is obtained b}^ assuming a greater value of shredded fodder over 
whole cornstalks of 33 per cent, adding this value of the fodder to the 
value of the corn and subtracting the various costs of cutting-, huskino;, 
and shredding the corn by the various hand and machine methods. 

CONCLUSIONS. 

The best way to preserve the greatest quantity of food materials of 
the original corn fodder for feeding of farm animals is by means of the 
corn harvester, ensilage cutter, and the silo. The cost of placing 1 
acre of corn in the silo is about the same as that of an acre of cured 
fodder. 

The farmer who would secure the full value of his corn crop should 
secure the fodder with as much care as he gives his clover hay, liar- 



48 

vesting it at the proper period, and not allowing it to become ruined 
by rain or frost. By the use of the proper machinery for harvesting 
the corn crop, the farmer maj increase the net income from his crop 
$8.72 per acre over hand methods of harvesting the ears and wasting 
the stalks and still allow full price for the use of the different machines. 
There is a limit beyond which it is not profitable for a farmer to 
invest in corn-harvesting machinery, and the amount of work to be 
done by the machine each year should be carefully considered before 
a purchase is made. 

o 



LB Mr '08 



